Back in 2019 a Denver Post article ('Americans' Views Of Scientists Complicated', Aug. 4, p. 6A) highlighted Americans' confusion over science, and scientific research. The good news from the results of a Pew Research Center survey? Well 86 percent of Americans said they trusted scientists at least "a fair amount". This was up from 70 percent 3 years earlier.
The bad news? A question concerning Americans' trust in science put to Google's Gemini yesterday produced this response:Loss of trust in science is no longer a domain-specific issue,
such as in the case of climate change. Instead, the United States is witnessing
a loss of general trust in science among half the population. Long-term trends
of political polarization now include beliefs regarding the trustworthiness of
science.
Indeed, I suspect the polarization aspect accelerated since the Covid pandemic when people were inundated with craziness concerning masks, vaccines and alternative quirky options to the latter, e.g.
According to the authors of the Denver Post piece, the polarization even then could be accounted for by how Republicans and Democrats viewed bias. In particular, the Republicans polled were more likely to say that scientists are just as susceptible to bias as other people. This has also tended to be the position of the climate change contrarians (mainly libertarians) in the high IQ societies such as Mensa and Intertel. E.g.
But see, the difference is when a scientist makes a claim or advances a new theory, say about CO2 concentration and climate, he needs to submit his work to a journal for peer review. This peer review ensures quality control and that the bias - if any - is a minimum. To the claim that climate change deniers' papers are rejected - as made by one Intertel member (Kort Patterson) some years ago- I pointed out in response:
"They are generally dismissed precisely because they lack the basics of adherence to basic scientific principles - including: proper data selection, analysis, consistent interpretation of data, and appropriate mathematical techniques. Hence, their papers are tagged as the opposite of authoritative science which is in fact pseudo-science."
In effect, the claims of bias by the Right arise precisely because they can't accept that propaganda or non-evidentiary material - such as deniers and too many contrarians create - aren't the same as science. In too many cases, the deniers simply haven't enough background - whether in physics, chemistry or mathematics - to hold up a substantive counter argument. As I wrote in one Integra (the journal of Intertel) response after being accused by member Alana Sullivan of "snow jobbing people with bullshit" in a previous essay concerning global warming:
"They are generally dismissed precisely because they lack the basics of adherence to basic scientific principles - including: proper data selection, analysis, consistent interpretation of data, and appropriate mathematical techniques. Hence, their papers are tagged as the opposite of authoritative science which is in fact pseudo-science."
In effect, the claims of bias by the Right arise precisely because they can't accept that propaganda or non-evidentiary material - such as deniers and too many contrarians create - aren't the same as science. In too many cases, the deniers simply haven't enough background - whether in physics, chemistry or mathematics - to hold up a substantive counter argument. As I wrote in one Integra (the journal of Intertel) response after being accused by member Alana Sullivan of "snow jobbing people with bullshit" in a previous essay concerning global warming:
Can I ask Alana Sullivan who accused me of smothering truth with bullshit on climate change: Have you taken a level 3 (junior) or higher thermal physics course – say at any university? How about a semester of thermodynamics in a calculus-based General Physics course? Do you even know the difference between heat and temperature, or what temperature is? Do you know the meaning of thermal equilibrium? Do you know what entropy is and how it enters climate physics?
If not, then I daresay you do not know what the hell you are talking – or complaining – about. In which case you can’t say I am "smothering truth" because you haven't the foggiest notion of what any truth pertaining to climate is. Nor do you have any remote clue how thermal physics applies to the climate conditions Professor Gunther Weller associated with tipping points.
Indeed, you lack the sufficient physics background to criticize – or even recognize – that some ‘x’ quantum of information is excessive or irrelevant. If you don't know a Btu from an erg, or a tipping point from the troposphere, how could you? Or, as psychologist David Dunning (the discoverer of the Dunning-Kruger Effect) once explained to Errol Morris, writing in an essay series, 'The Anosognosic’s Dilemma: Something’s Wrong but You’ll Never Know What It Is,” -for the New York Times:
“If you’re incompetent, you can’t know you’re incompetent … [T]he skills you need to produce a right answer are exactly the skills you need to recognize what a right answer is."
The reply struck an antagonistic chord with the resident deniers, who came at me from multiple irrelevant angles - including attacking the Dunning -Kruger effect as "unproven" and the NY Times as a "liberal rag". But at least one responding critic did concede: "You really tattooed Alana and the rest of us skeptics!"
Well, glad you admit it! Even before my reply to Alana Sullivan about her "B.S." claims I had noted the science education failures in much of the American public in a July 26, 2019 post:
"Most of the public - even those who read Scientific American- probably halted their math courses at Calculus, if they even took that. And from what I've read in a few education journals, barely 1 in 1000 Americans ever see the inside of a physics lab in connection with a college level General Physics course. So it is little wonder there is an existing impatience with theoretical physics and its "gibberish" equations and material"
The lack of sufficient education in math and science then is aa major factor in why Americans harbor inconsistent views of science and its role in our nation's security as well as progress.
There is also the broader issue of why Republicans (and most libertarians) generally have the beliefs they do, apart from whether they are highly educated deniers like Roger Pilke, Jr. These beliefs almost always assert severe doubts regarding the more controversial scientific findings, i.e. that rapidly increasing CO2 concentrations emphasize the need to cut carbon emissions. So what makes Republicans more susceptible to asserting (by 64%) that scientists are susceptible to bias?
I'd argue it is because they are victims of agnotology, derived from the Greek 'agnosis' i.e. the study of culturally constructed ignorance. We know this is achieved primarily by sowing the teeniest nugget of doubt in whatever claim is made (and as we know NO scientific theory is free of uncertainty).
Stanford historian of science Robert Proctor has correctly tied it to the trend of skeptic science sown deliberately and for political or economic ends. Since conservatives generally are more committed to economic and political imperatives - say over scientific ones - then it stands to reason they'd trust economists and politicians more than scientists. More importantly, they'd trust economic and political solutions much more than purely scientifically-based ones, say like drastically cutting carbon emissions. They are, in other words, more for higher share values in their fossil fuel stocks than supporting green energy initiatives which might lower them.
I'd argue it is because they are victims of agnotology, derived from the Greek 'agnosis' i.e. the study of culturally constructed ignorance. We know this is achieved primarily by sowing the teeniest nugget of doubt in whatever claim is made (and as we know NO scientific theory is free of uncertainty).
Stanford historian of science Robert Proctor has correctly tied it to the trend of skeptic science sown deliberately and for political or economic ends. Since conservatives generally are more committed to economic and political imperatives - say over scientific ones - then it stands to reason they'd trust economists and politicians more than scientists. More importantly, they'd trust economic and political solutions much more than purely scientifically-based ones, say like drastically cutting carbon emissions. They are, in other words, more for higher share values in their fossil fuel stocks than supporting green energy initiatives which might lower them.
Former Intertel president and editor of the Region 7 'Port of Call' often presented "Editor's Notes" which harangued climate scientists for undermining global capitalism by the use of "climate alarmism". (As is being done currently by climate kooks such as Bjorn Lomborg, i.e.
The thesis is basically that the costs to save humanity from the onset of accelerated warming are too much to pay, and it is better humans try to "adapt". Of course, I skewered this claptrap in the above blog post.
Given the Trumper liars are now in power, thanks to 77 m gullible voters, all these polarization issues which distort an understanding of science have been ramped up. From climate change, to vaccination policy, to the need for food and chemicals regulations we've taken a giant step backward. Add to that the federal (DOGE) cuts to funding of scientific agencies, i.e.
And you can understand the scope of how distorted perceptions of basic science are spreading, as one behold in almost every other WSJ op-ed column on climate.
And:
Yet another factor contributing to distortions and inconsistent perceptions of science is the mystifying leaning toward "practical practitioners" as opposed to researchers in pure science, say astrophysicists and cosmologists. Thus, overall people are more likely to trust "dieticians or physicians" than say, Neal deGrasse Tyson, Michio Kaku or Bill Nye. According to Susan Fiske, a psychologist at Princeton who studies trust:
"Trusting a group or profession comes from thinking about what their intentions and motives are. The motive of the research scientist can be murky. But with a doctor you assume the motive is to help people."
Yes, but that assumption could be wrong. The physician may only be that in order to pay off his/her student loan debt more expeditiously. Say as opposed to being a biology teacher, the actual calling. There may also be little interest in actually "helping" as opposed to making money off your visit. Let's also bear in mind most physicians aren't their own persons but operate under the auspices of some business or corporate entity - say Centura Health - that dictates their patient flow, time allotted for each and so on. So the belief in any 'help' may well be a total illusion.
At the same time, there may be a lack of trust in a pure researcher because his motive is "murky". In fact, it usually isn't the research or its motive that is "murky" but the respondent's understanding of it. But the more disturbing aspect as revealed in the Denver Post piece is the caricature of the research scientist (often derived from the characters in "The Big Bang Theory') ensconced in too many brains of ordinary folk. As we learn:
"Shows such as the Big Bang Theory partially explains why experts who do research are seen as 'capable of immoral conduct'. Essentially, the study found that this attitude is less about thinking that scientists are bad people and more about seeing them as being so robot-like that no one could possibly know their motives."
Which is mind boggling. But at least Ms. Fiske did get to the central point:
"I think part of what's going on here is that the more people know the more they trust."
Which goes back to my earlier point about math and science education ending too early, perhaps at 10th grade level, instead of going on further. At issue then is basic scientific literacy which, alas, too many of our countrymen lack. Demonstrating that literacy would, at the very least, mean passing a basic physics test, e.g.
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2010/10/basic-physics-test.html
Achieving that would at least show that citizens possess enough scientific competence to intelligently comment on major contentious issues of our time - whether global warming/climate change, or aspects of current defense spending- such as the advisability of Dotard Trump's "Golden Dome" missile defense, i.e.
"Trusting a group or profession comes from thinking about what their intentions and motives are. The motive of the research scientist can be murky. But with a doctor you assume the motive is to help people."
Yes, but that assumption could be wrong. The physician may only be that in order to pay off his/her student loan debt more expeditiously. Say as opposed to being a biology teacher, the actual calling. There may also be little interest in actually "helping" as opposed to making money off your visit. Let's also bear in mind most physicians aren't their own persons but operate under the auspices of some business or corporate entity - say Centura Health - that dictates their patient flow, time allotted for each and so on. So the belief in any 'help' may well be a total illusion.
At the same time, there may be a lack of trust in a pure researcher because his motive is "murky". In fact, it usually isn't the research or its motive that is "murky" but the respondent's understanding of it. But the more disturbing aspect as revealed in the Denver Post piece is the caricature of the research scientist (often derived from the characters in "The Big Bang Theory') ensconced in too many brains of ordinary folk. As we learn:
"Shows such as the Big Bang Theory partially explains why experts who do research are seen as 'capable of immoral conduct'. Essentially, the study found that this attitude is less about thinking that scientists are bad people and more about seeing them as being so robot-like that no one could possibly know their motives."
Which is mind boggling. But at least Ms. Fiske did get to the central point:
"I think part of what's going on here is that the more people know the more they trust."
Which goes back to my earlier point about math and science education ending too early, perhaps at 10th grade level, instead of going on further. At issue then is basic scientific literacy which, alas, too many of our countrymen lack. Demonstrating that literacy would, at the very least, mean passing a basic physics test, e.g.
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2010/10/basic-physics-test.html
Achieving that would at least show that citizens possess enough scientific competence to intelligently comment on major contentious issues of our time - whether global warming/climate change, or aspects of current defense spending- such as the advisability of Dotard Trump's "Golden Dome" missile defense, i.e.
Trump's "Golden Dome" Fantasy - Yet Another Colossal Waste Of Money That Rivals Reagan's Star Wars Boondoggle
In addition, a more uniform competence across multiple scientific disciplines would arguably close the gaps between Democrats and Republicans, especially in terms of whether scientists have the right to contribute to policy discussions, funding appropriation decisions.
The takeaway? Americans have inconsistent perceptions of the worth of scientific work (and motives of researchers) because they have inconsistent scientific backgrounds and knowledge themselves. This is in addition allowing political interference, especially by way of misinformation, derailing them from a proper grasp of the science.
See also:
In addition, a more uniform competence across multiple scientific disciplines would arguably close the gaps between Democrats and Republicans, especially in terms of whether scientists have the right to contribute to policy discussions, funding appropriation decisions.
The takeaway? Americans have inconsistent perceptions of the worth of scientific work (and motives of researchers) because they have inconsistent scientific backgrounds and knowledge themselves. This is in addition allowing political interference, especially by way of misinformation, derailing them from a proper grasp of the science.
See also:
And:
And:
No comments:
Post a Comment